Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Support for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 330 (872059)
02-19-2020 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Hyroglyphx
02-19-2020 10:58 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
I already answered from John MacArthur way back there, that "this generation" is clearly to be read IN CONTEXT as referring to the generation that witnesses the things Jesus has been talking about.
Are you really so arrogant as to think that YOU know more than the many teachers and preachers who have studied these things for years and certgainly know all the verses you posted. Unbelievers are certainly a cheeky lot.
I hope you don't mind if I can't get to your posts since I've been awfully busy dealing with PaulK's already and I'm also trying to listen to people at You Tube who know what they are talking about on these issues.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-19-2020 10:58 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 11:53 AM Faith has replied
 Message 189 by ringo, posted 02-19-2020 2:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-19-2020 6:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 182 of 330 (872061)
02-19-2020 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
02-19-2020 11:48 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
quote:
I already answered from John MacArthur way back there, that "this generation" is clearly to be read IN CONTEXT as referring to the generation that witnesses the things Jesus has been talking about.
But you have yet to support that claim, and Hyroglyphx includes context that points the other way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 11:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 11:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 183 of 330 (872062)
02-19-2020 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by PaulK
02-19-2020 11:53 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
Just read the passage in context, that's all MacArthur did. It's perfectly clear when you read the whole thing as a unit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 11:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 12:05 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 184 of 330 (872063)
02-19-2020 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
02-19-2020 11:55 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
quote:
Just read the passage in context
I’ve done that, and the context points to the natural reading of the then-current generation.
quote:
... that's all MacArthur did. It's perfectly clear when you read the whole thing as a unit.
Clearly false unless your context includes the assumption that it must happen and the fact that it didn’t. Neither of which should be included.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 11:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 12:46 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 185 of 330 (872065)
02-19-2020 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by PaulK
02-19-2020 12:05 PM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
MacArthur read it out loud to show that it naturally leads to reading the word in the context of the generation alive at the time of the events He's talking about. I wish I knew where to find that so I could post it but there's too much to look through so I probably won't be able to.
But you must admit it's the only reading that makes sense of the passage and doesn't destroy the integrity of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 12:05 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 12:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 190 by Coragyps, posted 02-19-2020 2:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 186 of 330 (872066)
02-19-2020 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
02-19-2020 12:46 PM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
quote:
MacArthur read it out loud to show that it naturally leads to reading the word in the context of the generation alive at the time of the events He's talking about.
I doubt it because there is so much context that points to it being then then-present generation.
quote:
I wish I knew where to find that so I could post it but there's too much to look through so I probably won't be able to.
If reading in context were enough you wouldn’t need help.
quote:
But you must admit it's the only reading that makes sense of the passage and doesn't destroy the integrity of the Bible
I certainly do not. Because it is not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 12:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 1:43 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 187 of 330 (872067)
02-19-2020 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by PaulK
02-19-2020 12:56 PM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
I get so tired of having everything I say, that comes from reputable Christian sources, called false and wrong and a lie, I don't want to continue. No your reading is NOT true to the scripture, you are just deceiving yourself. Believe what you want, what do I care. I'll just go with the authorities I've always most appreciated -- I sometimes object to things they say but just once in a while -- and you are welcome to keep on getting further and further away from the truth. If I get a second wind I'll come back and continue but for now I'm sick of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 12:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 2:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 188 of 330 (872068)
02-19-2020 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
02-19-2020 1:43 PM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
quote:
I get so tired of having everything I say, that comes from reputable Christian sources, called false and wrong and a ***, I don't want to continue.
In other words rather than defend your assertions you are going to run away. Which makes it rather clear that all you have is things your sources tell you, and we’ve already seen that many of them do not stand up to examination.
And really if the context does make it obvious that the Olivet Discourse doesn’t refer to the then current generation you should be able to point out at least some of the features that support that view. If you can’t see them, they cannot be obvious.
quote:
No your reading is NOT true to the scripture, you are just deceiving yourself
Since I’ve clearly looked at it more than you, you aren’t really in a position to make that claim. The more so since you can’t support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 1:43 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 3:18 PM PaulK has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 189 of 330 (872070)
02-19-2020 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
02-19-2020 11:48 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
Faith writes:
I already answered from John MacArthur way back there, that "this generation" is clearly to be read IN CONTEXT as referring to the generation that witnesses the things Jesus has been talking about.
Circular again. "This generation will see X" is interpreted as whatever generation sees X. "This" is superfluous.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 11:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 190 of 330 (872071)
02-19-2020 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
02-19-2020 12:46 PM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
He read it out loud. In Koine Greek, so it would be in proper context?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 12:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 191 of 330 (872073)
02-19-2020 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by PaulK
02-19-2020 2:16 PM


The Generation of the Olivet Discourse - Mark 13
The introduction has Jesus saying that the Herodian Temple will be destroyed (v2). They move on, but Peter, James, John and Andrew ask him to explain when that will occur (v3-4).
It starts off with Jesus warning them of bad things that are going to happen, and telling the disciples that they must go out and preach and they will be persecuted for it.
Things kick into a higher gear in verse 14:
When they see the Abomination of Desolation - a reference to Daniel - those in Judaea must flee to the mountains. The Abomination should be in the Temple - which should still be standing. After all the destruction is what this is all about.
Daniel 12:11 is relevant:
11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Which fits into the seventy weeks of Daniel 9.
This is the Tribulation. The next verses emphasise how bad it will be. I’ll quote 19-20 to make the point.
19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
So the Tribulation is in full swing and the Temple hasn’t been destroyed (and there’s no mention of a Rapture). Jesus is still addressing the Disciples as if they will see it.
Then we get the cosmic signs and the Son of Man arrives (another Daniel reference, although slightly distorted 7:13-14).
24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
Still no mention of the Temple being destroyed.
This is really the end of the events, so presumably the Temple is destroyed at this point.
Jesus goes on with the parable of the Fig Tree, which is where the generation comes in:
28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
Again, Jesus addresses the Disciples as if they will be there - when they see the signs, they will know that the end is near, and if they can endure through it they will be saved.
Reading it as the present generation is the natural reading (in English that would be used to indicate some other), it is consistent also with the expectation that the Disciples will see it, and it emphasise the nearness of the event - a point seen elsewhere.
Reading it as some future generation denies these indicators and diminishes it - if it will be only a few years from the Abomination to the end as Daniel says, then it is redundant to say that that will be within a generation. Yet there are no clear signs before then - we’ve had lots of wars, earthquakes and famines and we can’t pin them down to say that only one generation will see them, and the end.
Also the fate of the Herodian Temple is very problematic to the idea that the prophecy must be true. The time of the Temple’s destruction is the main point of the Discourse, it can’t go unremarked right at the beginning. That is not a viable reading, So we are left with the Temple certainly surviving until the start of the Tribulation and likely through it. The Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 2:16 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 330 (872086)
02-19-2020 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
02-19-2020 11:48 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
I already answered from John MacArthur way back there, that "this generation" is clearly to be read IN CONTEXT as referring to the generation that witnesses the things Jesus has been talking about.
Even supposing that the word generation was poorly translated or transliterated, you still have other identifiers that use present tense. That's the funny thing about tenses in sentences, it helps establish timelines.
Are you really so arrogant as to think that YOU know more than the many teachers and preachers who have studied these things for years and certgainly know all the verses you posted. Unbelievers are certainly a cheeky lot.
Are you so arrogant that you would appeal to authority instead of reading the scriptures themselves? Super ironic of you to say because the RCC said that the commoner cannot read or understand the bible and therefore required priests to do it for them. Martin Luther encouraged the commoner to read the bible for themselves and to stop listening to doctrines invented by the church.
You and MacArthur have suspect motives because admitting that the verses don't say what they clearly spell out, your whole narrative falls apart. You have a lot to lose by admitting it. It's no sweat off my back what it says. I have no skin in the game. I'm just relaying what it says and you've now read it for yourself. Don't shoot the messenger.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 11:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 193 of 330 (872087)
02-19-2020 7:49 PM


A Digression to Genesis 6 and then back to Revelation
Whatever else is going on here at least I'm getting to immerse myself in the scriptures and the best commentators on them, so that bit by bit all this is starting to come together in my head.
Just out of curiosity I took a detour and listened to MacArthur at You Tube on Genesis 6, in which the "sons of God" marry the daughters of men and have children, which is connected with God's reasons for destroying the Earth in the Flood. He identifies the sons of God as demons, which I'm glad to see because the usual idea that they are the line of Seth is so obviously some kind of whitewash. (The term "sons of God" is used throughout scripture to identify angels, whether holy or fallen.)
But then he seems to shy away from the idea that they actually produced progeny, these demons with their human wives. Seems to me that's what the scripture says. But then I noticed that Chuck Missler has a talk on the same subject and he's usually pretty fearless about going where angels fear to tread as it were, so I listened to some of that talk and sure enough, he argues for these unions as the source of the "Titans" and demi-gods, half angel and half human, such as those of Greece and Rome, such as Hercules for one. A question I have that neither MacArthur nor Missler addresses is how they can procreate since we are told that in heaven there is no marriage, and both mention that angels are direct creations of God, they are not themselves the result of procreation, which raises the question whether they even have genitalia. If they don't need it why would they have it?
But if they really did beget offspring with women this is a question that isn't getting answers. MacArthur believes they possessed human bodies for the purpose, without addressing this question about their anatomy, just sort of assuming that would be necessary. Living men allowed themselves to be possessed by demons or what?
Missler thinks the scripture itself shows that they begat children with these women but doesn't talk about their anatomy either or how this would have been possible, just that they did. Do angels have DNA? If they begat children they would have wouldn't they? Questions, questions. Usually when I pray for an answer to a question concerning scripture God gives me the answer in a day or so. So I'm praying.
It's a pretty complex study, and both of these teachers are very thorough, but Missler is even more thorough than MacArthur, since he happily investigates the biblical usage of the tiniest clue he finds in a passage, and he has an amazing eye for tiny details nobody else notices. But I just wanted to hear that much and I want to go back to it later.
======================
Then I went to Missler on Revelation since that's the topic of this thread. I've certainly read the Book of Revelation, more than once, but this idea that we can just read a part of the Bible and be experts in how it is to be understood is ridiculous. Especially the prophetic books.
At least I've read them so I know what's in them but I know I need help to understand what they mean and that's why I listen to teachers such as MacArthur and Missler. They've both read a lot of historical background information on the scriptures, Jewish writers, done word studies in Hebrew and Greek, so they can teach to a depth the average reader isn't in a position to grasp alone. Missler in particular seems to know what every turn of phrase means in Jewish writings and MacArthur is not bad at that himself.
As I've noted in a post or two here I've had lots of questions about the prophecies related to the end times that have been getting answered bit by bit as I listen to different preachers on them. New questions come up anyway, but I just answered one myself listening to Missler. First both he and MacArthur say that the Book of Revelation from Chapter Four on is yet future, which was something I hadn't been sure about before, since there are those who interpret it as occurring throughout history. But if Chapter Four shows the Rapture then of course it's all future since the Rapture hasn't yet occurred in history. So I had to first come to accept that the Rapture is indicated by John's being called up to heaven in that chapter. Chapters four and five show the Church in heaven, so if it is a picture of Chrsitians there after the Rapture, then the seven seals of the scroll haven't yet been opened and will be opened at that time, and since everything from Chapter Six through Eighteen is the judgments on the Earth that have been sealed up in that scroll until that time, then all that is also yet future, and those who think it is just ongoing history are missing the clues. Easy enough to do with prophetic scripture if you are just the average reader, or even if you are just the average exegete, but it's safer just not to come to a conclusion at all than miss the clues and jump to a conclusion.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-19-2020 11:26 PM Faith has replied
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2020 12:23 AM Faith has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 330 (872093)
02-19-2020 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
02-19-2020 7:49 PM


Re: A Digression to Genesis 6 and then back to Revelation
A question I have that neither MacArthur nor Missler addresses is how they can procreate since we are told that in heaven there is no marriage, and both mention that angels are direct creations of God, they are not themselves the result of procreation, which raises the question whether they even have genitalia. If they don't need it why would they have it?
I'm glad to see that you are thinking critically, and no, that is not sarcasm. I am being sincere.
As to the "Sons of Men," the phrase appears in a few places in bible and usually seems to infer angels. We know from scripture that Lot was harboring two angels and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to rape them. Seems like its implying that angels can take on human form; I can only assume with full anatomy -- genitalia and all.
As we know from the story, the Nephilim were the progeny of these unholy unions. Their existence seems to play a big factor in the great Flood. The Book of Enoch was discovered in several different places, like Ethiopia and even fragments were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. While it holds no place in the modern cannon, it seems like it was of enough importance to Jews and early Christians to salvage it; presumably because it was revered as legitimate scripture.
I'm sure you know who Enoch is in the bible. And the book itself implies that Noah was the author. We can deduce this from Table of Nations:
quote:
"And they shall confine those angels who disclosed impiety. In that burning valley it is, that they shall be confined, which at first my great-grandfather Enoch showed me in the west, where there were mountains of gold and silver, of iron, of fluid metal, and of tin." -- Book of Enoch; Chapter 66:4
The contents of the book is basically a really long form version of Genesis 5-6. In it, it discusses the names of supposed fallen angels and what happened as a result:
quote:
"These are the names of their chiefs: Samyaza, who was their leader, Urakabarameel, Akibeel, Tamiel, Ramuel, Danel, Azkeel, Saraknyal, Asael,
Armers, Batraal, Anane, Zavebe, Samsaveel, Ertael, Turel, Yomyael, Arazyal. These were the prefects of the two hundred angels, and the remainder were all with them.
Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees.
And the women conceiving brought forth giants,
Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labour of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;
When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;
And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.
Then the earth reproved the unrighteous." -- Book of Enoch; Chapter 7:9-15
Of course, 300 cubits is a ridiculous size... For perspective and scale Noah's Ark was 300 cubits. So are we supposed to believe that Ark-sized giants were procreating with normal-sized women? And no physical evidence to support it? But I digress...
The other thing is, if the Flood wiped these Nephilim out (as we know who the survivors of the Flood were) then how is it they reappear in scripture elsewhere?
quote:
The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them. Numbers 13:32-33
So just so you know, its these kinds of internal inconsistencies and absurdities that erodes one faith... The more you know about the bible, the less you start to believe. That's been my case in any event.
Do angels have DNA? If they begat children they would have wouldn't they? Questions, questions. Usually when I pray for an answer to a question concerning scripture God gives me the answer in a day or so. So I'm praying.
Would it matter either way? Everyone likes a good mystery but would knowing the answer or not knowing the answer effect your salvation?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 7:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 02-20-2020 3:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 02-21-2020 8:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 02-21-2020 9:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 02-21-2020 9:18 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 195 of 330 (872095)
02-20-2020 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
02-19-2020 7:49 PM


Re: A Digression to Genesis 6 and then back to Revelation
quote:
As I've noted in a post or two here I've had lots of questions about the prophecies related to the end times that have been getting answered bit by bit as I listen to different preachers on them. New questions come up anyway, but I just answered one myself listening to Missler. First both he and MacArthur say that the Book of Revelation from Chapter Four on is yet future, which was something I hadn't been sure about before, since there are those who interpret it as occurring throughout history
Revelation 4 leads into Revelation 5, so it represents the situation just prior to opening the Seven Seals.
quote:
But if Chapter Four shows the Rapture then of course it's all future since the Rapture hasn't yet occurred in history.
It seems pretty clear that it doesn’t represent the Rapture. The lack of any mention of the Rapture in Revelation is a major problem to the pre-Trib Rapture so they desperately cast around for something. But if we take a bit of the framing as prophecy and John for the Church, why stop there?
quote:
But if Chapter Four shows the Rapture then of course it's all future since the Rapture hasn't yet occurred in history. So I had to first come to accept that the Rapture is indicated by John's being called up to heaven in that chapter. Chapters four and five show the Church in heaven, so if it is a picture of Chrsitians there after the Rapture, then the seven seals of the scroll haven't yet been opened and will be opened at that time, and since everything from Chapter Six through Eighteen is the judgments on the Earth that have been sealed up in that scroll until that time, then all that is also yet future, and those who think it is just ongoing history are missing the clues.
I suspect that they have reasons, and they aren’t likely to be much worse than the pre-Trib Rapture people’s reasons. You’ve never made the argument about Revelation 5 (which is odd because I can see an argument there which is better than most of them - but still with a significant problem). Further, as I have pointed out there are good reasons in the Revelation to doubt it.
However, there are better readings. For instance the multitude of Revelation 7 is likely meant to be the survivors of the Church, rescued from the Tribulation. The description matches that of the church (7:9 and 5:9). They are only taken to be others because of the pre-Tribulation Rapture is assumed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 7:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 02-20-2020 3:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024